Moral outrage over atrocities overrode expert assessments to justify military intervention

Evidence

A number of foreign policy and counterterrorist experts were highly critical of the rush to war without congressional debate about the plan for the military mission, the long-term strategy, and what it would accomplish in the end (Mazzetti, Schmitt, & Landler, 2014). Critics also questioned the justification for the war. The Obama administration justified going to war against ISIS on the grounds that it posed an immediate threat to the security of the nation, although security agencies reported that ISIS posed no immediate danger. Despite these assessments, House Speaker John Boehner sounded the alarm: “These are barbarians. They intend to kill us. And if we don’t destroy them first, we’re gonna pay the price” (Fuller, 2014). Heightened fear and wrath over the savage execution of the two journalists provided the driving force to strike back immediately and forcibly. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2466

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Bandura’s own moral disengagement framework — displacement of responsibility onto an external threat justifies violence. — connects to: NGOs’ investigate-expose-shame method fit markets but welcomed military intervention — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 61; Images of distant suffering provoke moral engagement and military intervention. — Emanuele Castano, On the Perils of Glorifying the…, 15